DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains an error in reciting “claims 1” in line 11 instead of “claim 1.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN109853770 to Huang et al. (“Huang”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a self-centering energy dissipation device (Figs. 3 and 4) adapted to be connected to a first object and a second object, said self-centering energy dissipation device comprising: a first base seat 7 adapted to be connected to the first object; at least one main shaft 9 extending through said first base seat; two second base seats 6, 8 connected respectively and movably (via nuts 151, 152) to two opposite ends of said at least one main shaft and adapted to be connected to the second object; and at least one pair of elastic members 101, 102 sleeved on said at least one main shaft, each of said at least one pair of elastic members having a first end abutting against said first base seat 7, and a second end abutting against a respective one of said second base seats 1, 8.
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses that said first base seat is substantially a rectangular cuboid, and includes two abutment walls (walls abutting 121 and 122) permitting said at least one main shaft to extend therethrough, and two first attaching walls (walls defining upper and lower faces of 7) transverse to and connected to said abutment walls.
Regarding claim 10, Huang discloses that said at least one pair of elastic members 101, 102 is a disc spring.
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses a wall damping assembly (Fig. 4) adapted to connect a first object and a second object, said wall damping assembly comprising: an upper wall body 13 adapted to be connected to the first object; a lower wall body 14 adapted to be connected to the second object; and said self-centering energy dissipation device as claimed in claim 1 disposed between said upper wall body and said lower wall body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang.
Regarding claim 5, Huang does not disclose that said first base seat 7 is substantially H-shaped, and includes an abutment wall permitting said at least one main shaft to extend therethrough, and two first attaching walls connected respectively to two sides of said abutment wall that are opposite in a direction transverse to said at least one main shaft and adapted to be connected to the first object. However, Huang discloses that other base seats 6, 8 can be substantially H-shaped and includes an abutment wall (through which 9 extends) permitting said at least one main shaft 9 to extend therethrough, and two first attaching walls (horizontal portions of 6 and 8) connected respectively to two sides of said abutment wall that are opposite in a direction transverse to said at least one main shaft. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Huang to have an H-shaped first base seat shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the components. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 15, Huang does not disclose that each of said upper wall body and said lower wall body is one of a square steel column. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Huang to have said upper wall body and said lower wall body be a square column shape or H-shaped since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the components. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, alone or in obvious combination absent hindsight, discloses applicant’s invention of a self-centering energy dissipation device comprising inter alia the structure of claims 2, 6, 9, 13, and 14.
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4 of the closest prior art to Huang (see rejection above), Huang’s first base seat 7 does not have a first attaching wall transverse to and connected to one side of an abutment wall; and two lateral walls transverse to said first attaching wall and said abutment wall, connected to two sides of said abutment wall that are opposite in a direction transverse to said at least one main shaft and two sides of said first attaching wall that are opposite in the direction transverse to said at least one main shaft. In fact, Huang’s first base seat is a planar without and any additional walls extending in a particular direction as claimed. Even if Huang’s first base seat was altered to have and H-shape like the second base seats 6, 8, there is no attaching wall that is transverse to the abutment wall and the two lateral walls. The cited prior arts also fail to disclose a first base seat that is substantially T-shaped, and includes an abutment wall permitting said at least one main shaft to extend therethrough, and a first attaching wall transverse to and connected to one side of said abutment wall nor two clamping blocks that extend from said upper wall body toward said lower wall body, and that abut respectively against two sides of said first base seat opposite in a direction transverse to said at least one main shaft. There is absent teaching for such a structure. The cited prior arts disclose planar first base seats and no other structure extending from upper wall body and lower wall body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights